All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

It is a shame that the Law *is* being broken. I read the Oregon statute and the courts are going to say the man->woman inference is implied. Unfortunately, I think this whole thing is going to piss off the majority of Americans and it will end up as an amendment to the constitution. I hope it doesn't end up like that but I think because people have taken the law into their own hands its going to force it to go that way.

These people have no respect for the rule of law. Civil disobedience has it's place, but only when every other mechanism has been tried. This issue is currently being decided in the courts and legislatures nationwide and now is not the time to disregard the law.

I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.

Civil disobedience has place when civil rights are being ignored by a governement. I'm not well placed to judge whether it's the case currently in the US, but I'd like to point out that the black people who fought for their most basic civil rights decades ago faced exactly this kind of discriminatory remarks.

That's why I said that civil disobedience has it's place. Clearly, the black people's rights were not being addressed by the government at that time and thus, they had the right to take matters into their hands.

You wrote: I don't see how my remarks are in any way discriminatory, however.

From dictionary.com [reference.com], the difinition of discriminatory: Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. Head over there and take a look at their definitions of prejudice [reference.com], if you must.

Give that definition, let's take a look at something you previously wrote:

I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been ex

Ahh, so because I was born single, I don't deserve to be able to identify another person who should share health insurance with me, who should receive benefits if I die accidentally, or who can make medical decisions for me?

Because of the way the law works, if I get married, I automatically have those rights conferred on my spouse. If I am not married and I want to have those rights, I frequently have to hire a lawyer, assign power of attorney, make a will, etc. This is not only expensive, but it's more easily challenged in court by relatives or other interested parties who might not approve of my decisions. I think this falls back to my feeling that th

Are you suggesting that these special rights should automatically be available to everyone regardless of marital status?

Absolutely. If our goal is equal protection under the law, we ought to do it right, not piecemeal. If it's wrong to deny a citizen the right to assign power of attorney based on that person's marital status, we ought to remove that right from marital status.

I realize this won't solve all of the difficult issues (homosexual marriage for green cards?), but it seems to make a lot of p

If so, it seems as if the legal basis for marriage becomes irrelevant and marriage reverts to a religious institution. As such, giving same-sex couples the right to marry would be moot as they could easily find a minister who is willing to officiate at their ceremony the legal concept of marriage could cease to exist.

From dictionary.com [reference.com], the difinition of discriminatory: Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. Head over there and take a look at their definitions of prejudice [reference.com], if you must.

Give that definition, let's take a look at something you previously wrote:

I don't seriously believe that many of these people even want to be married. I think they just want to participate in destroying a traditional institution that they have been excluded from for reasons of revenge.

In this article [family.org] a paper by Gay Activists is described [...]
Would it be your position that none of the gay couples who
are now marrying actually have as an agenda to destroy traditional institutions like marriage?

Citing a Focus on the Family web page, and then challenging someone to prove a negative?
That's argumentation barely
worthy of a Jack Chick tract. [epsilonminus.com]